Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It discloses the optimistic-locking mechanism, which is valuable, but omits other mutation-relevant facts such as permission requirements, reversibility, conflict-handling behavior, or response format. This is a meaningful gap for a write tool with no structured safety hints.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two tightly written sentences that front-load the operation and follow with the critical precondition. No filler or redundancy.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given a five-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and zero schema descriptions, the definition covers the core action and the locking requirement but leaves the agent without parameter-level guidance or behavioral context. It is minimum viable but not complete.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It names three parameters (caption, platforms, schedule) but provides no syntax, format, or type details, and completely omits id and expected_updated_at semantics beyond the locking note. With five parameters at zero coverage, the description adds marginal meaning and leaves the agent guessing.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a clear verb (Update) and resource (post) and enumerates the mutable fields (caption, platforms, schedule). It is distinguishable from sibling create_post by being an update on an existing post, though it does not name siblings explicitly.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Specifies a required precondition ('requires expected_updated_at from a fresh list_posts/get_post_results read'), effectively naming the sibling tools that must be called first. It does not state exclusions (e.g., which posts cannot be updated or what to do on conflict), but the context is clear.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.